Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Gay or straight, give couples same rights
Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Recently in Nevada, same-sex couples were granted domestic partnership rights. Though this is hardly a small feat for gay people in the state, it still leaves a bitter taste.
By conceding that gay people deserve domestic partnerships, we say that gay people deserve many of the rights of those receiving a marriage license but not the name of marriage. So why make that difference?
The classic argument against gay marriage is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, leaving no room for gay people. This definition is religious in nature, and so it shouldn’t have an effect on the government’s proceedings.
A compromise would be to have the government see all qualifying couples, both gay and straight, as domestic partnerships (or civil unions). That way gay people could receive the same rights and responsibilities without having to make religious people give up the moniker of marriage, about which they are so possessive.
When two children cannot agree to share a toy and constantly fight over it, the fairest thing a parent can do is take it away so neither can have it.
Discussion: 78 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Judge’s divorce filing follows arrest of her husband, a lawyer
- Two years after Sports Illustrated feature, Bellfield says gamble paid off
- Task force taking down mortgage scammers, one at a time
- Martha Stewart has no business criticizing Palin
- Contractors make another bid for Fontainebleau
- UNLV zaps Holy Cross, 80-59
- Shooting in parking lot of CVS leaves man dead
- Las Vegas expecting more visitors this Thanksgiving
- Holiday shoppers skip turkey for Strip stores
- Man, 26, dies in collision with truck traveling at 100 mph
Blogs
The Kats Report
Could a savior of shuttered Las Vegas Art Museum be ... Peter Max? (3 Comments)
For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over (3 Comments)
Twenty years ago today, Human Nature took root on the farm (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond’s triumphant return to the Flamingo
The Kats Report
'DWTS' champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo (8 Comments)
Politics: The Early Line
Meeting of GOP governors draws challengers, not Gibbons (3 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Oscar loves forcing developers to sign labor peace agreements, Culinary loves the city's downtown plans and all is forgiven (7 Comments)
Calendar »
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
- 29 Sun
- 30 Mon
- 1 Tue
-
Bill Cosby at Treasure Island
Treasure Island Theatre
-
The Las Vegas Locomotives vs. the Florida Tuskers
Sam Boyd Stadium
-
Papa Roach at the House of Blues
House of Blues | 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Tuff-N-Uff at the Orleans
Mardi Gras Room | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
David Spade at the Venetian
The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
This is not just for same-sex couples, this is for all domestic partnerships.
"So why make that difference?"
You answer your own question, Harry, in your next sentence...
"The classic argument against gay marriage is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman,"
...but there is plenty of room for gay people, but gay people don't want to get married, ie. form a union between a man and a woman, that's why they're gay!
No one wants to deny gays their right to civil unions, their right to live in sin, but they're not changing the definition of the word, "marriage". Likewise, don't try to force me and other reasonable persons to accept the gay lifestyle as an acceptable alternative to heterosexual marriage. Marriage has been the foundation of this society, in fact of every society since the beginning of time.
enteaser,
"...gay people don't want to get married, ie. form a union between a man and a woman, that's why they're gay!"
What an utterly ridiculous comment.
Gay people are gay because they were born that way. I absolutely reject your notion that to be gay is to live in sin; G-d made gay people as surely as He made you and I. And before you start quoting the Bible, please remember that G-d didn't write it; people did.
There is a difference between marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense. Nobody is suggesting that anybody's religious institution be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or any marriage ceremonies for that matter. If your religion teaches you to be intolerant of certain aspects of G-d's creation, so be it.
What we have with marriage in the legal sense, however, is a 14th amendment issue. The constitution guarantees everyone the equal protection of the law. We confer special legal rights on married people in the form of lower tax rates, inheritance rights, and other special privileges. When we deny those rights to gay people because the law does not allow them to marry, we deny them the equal protection of the law.
In the legal sense, we have two options: We can either start giving these special privileges to all married couples - gay or otherwise - or we can take them away from everybody and quit making marriage the business of government.
JohnF posted...
"...gay people don't want to get married, ie. form a union between a man and a woman, that's why they're gay!"
What an utterly ridiculous comment.
Gay people are gay because they were born that way."
Bulltickie!!!! Sexual behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a behavior, and human beings have free will and can decide upon whether to engage in that behavior or not. It is a choice, pure and simple. What a ridiculous statement, JohnF!
You are free to reject the notion that living the homosexual lifestyle is living in sin just as I am free to accept that notion! What you are not free to do is to change the definition of the word. "marriage", which by definition is a union between one man and one woman.
There is NO difference between marriage in the legal sense and religious sense. And I don't know of any religion, certainly no Christian religion, that teaches intolerance towards any of God's creatures. But don't confuse tolerance with truth; the truth is that homosexuality behavior, not the inclination towards homosexuality, is a sin. Heterosexuals have plenty of temptations towards sin also, just ask David Letterman, but they don't have to act upon those temptations.
And don't even try to bring in the 14th amendment as I have already conceded giving equal rights to gay couples. For instance, they should be subject to the same marriage penalty in tax rates that heterosexual couples have been exposed to over the past several years.
Marriage is and has been the concern of government because heterosexual marriage and the rearing of children is the foundation of this and any human society. To deny this truth, as you apparently are wont to do, is utterly ridiculous!
"Recently in Nevada, same-sex couples were granted domestic partnership rights."
Rader -- as long as those citizens continue to buy into the myth they have to be "granted" rights they already have, this debate will rage.
The real question is who gets to define marriage and why should that source be respected? As I've posted here several times before, a century and a half ago We the People bought into the myth the state has the power to license marriages. That sowed the seeds of this controversy.
You talk about "compromise." Why?? The state is bound by its own organic law to protect those very liberties it is now "granting" and to respect all people as equal before the law. Until that root problem is torn out and corrected -- starting with Nevada's Article I, Section 21 -- nothing will change. And that part of our citizenry who choose to love those outside the norm for the rest of the herd will continue to suffer the kind of discrimination many of us thought was settled by the 60s.
"No one wants to deny gays their right to civil unions, their right to live in sin..."
enteaser -- your suggestion these people need your and your ilk's approval to to enjoy the very same privileges of marriage you take for granted, based on their lifestyle being sinful, is rank bigotry, and it's despicable. And only one of the many reasons why your dogma has no credibility in this Discussion.
"There is NO difference between marriage in the legal sense and religious sense."
Please. Perhaps in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but this is the United States of America. You've read the first amendment, perhaps?
Actually, I think we may be on the same page here. I do believe that some people oppose legalizing gay marriage because they think their churches may be forced to start performing them. I don't believe your church, or any religious institution, should be required to perform any marriage ceremony it deems as being contrary to its teachings. That, too, would be a violation of the first amendment. We certainly have different ideas regarding theology, but theology should never be a matter of law.
But marriage in the legal sense is a different matter. This has to do with a couple's relationship with the government, not their relationship with G-d. If it makes people more comfortable to call it a civil union I have no problem with that, but perhaps we ought to call all marriages civil unions as they pertain to the government and keep the term marriage the privileged possession of religious institutions. That might take some of the passion out of this argument.
By the way JohnF, It's spelled GOD. Maybe you should work on it.
Comment removed by staff.
JohnF said...
"Actually, I think we may be on the same page here"
...and...
"If it makes people more comfortable to call it a civil union I have no problem with that,"
...Yes, we are on the same page here and we do agree. too bad you continued...
"but perhaps we ought to call all marriages civil unions as they pertain to the government and keep the term marriage the privileged possession of religious institutions."
...No, marriage by definition is a union, civil or religious, between a man and a woman. That's why I said there is no difference between a civil and a religious marriage, they are both defined as a union between a man and a woman. The state has a stake in protecting marriage just as the church does. Marriage, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, is the foundation upon which our civil society is built.
"Marriage, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, is the foundation upon which our civil society is built."
enteaser -- you get that from where exactly?
"Marriage, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, is the foundation upon which our civil society is built."
No it is not. This is hooey. The divorce rate is nearing 50%. What kind of foundation fails half the time?
Marriage is the foundation upon which our civil society is built. That's not even debatable. If you(Killer B) need a source for that truism, there's no point discussing any topic with you. You probably disagree with the meaning of "is" also.
It took some fair minded Republicans to override a hypocritical governor's veto to make this step a reality.
I can only write from my heart that what I know to be true. Robert and I would never have choosen our gayness. Who would choose something that until fairly recently has been so frowned upon by society as a whole?
And as the coversation about marriage equaity, civil unions and domestic partnerships goes foward, we see hearts and minds slowly changing.
Fair minded legislators, civic and corporate leaders have begun picking up the pieces of debris left behind from campaigns which have divided us...campaigns which became a cash cow for people who pandered for votes, using fear as a way to line their pockets.
Governor Gibbons is a role model for the sanctity of marriage? Senator Ensign, anybody? Richard Ziser is a moral leader? When Ziser bankrolled "question 2" by going on talk radio saying all he wanted to do was "protect marriage" he made it seem as if civil unions or domstic partnerships was a possbility. How many voters supported "question 2" thinking that all they were doing was protectiong the "traditional meaning of marriage" yet wanted to see your gay family members, neghbors and co-workers still find some measure of equality under the law? If this recent debate about Domestic Partneships in this legislative session didn't prove to you how disingenuous these people have been...nothing will.
As I have stated in previous posts, Robert and I feel strongly that our churches should be free to make their own choices about marriage. But, the courthouses should belong to ALL Americans. We were gratefully married in Canada.
I wish for every partnered couple the joy, companionship and happiness that Robert and I have found in our lives.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Robert and I believe that the reason that the term "marriage" has become so important is beause alternative titles such as "civil unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" in places where they have already been tested (Vermont, New Jersey, Conecticut, etc.) simply do not do what they were intended to do. Especially where employee benefits are concered.
We're so heartened people are starting to come around. Thats a huge step towards progress. But the sad truth is, my casino employer will not recognize my "domestic parnership" just as they don't recognize my legal Canadian marriage. And I have been a 15 year employee who gives one hundred per cent at my job and have been recognized many time for my efforts.
"Marriage" comes with over 1100 rights and resposibilities, my domestic partnership, though we're glad to have it, does not even come close.
Robert and I were legally married in Canada on July 27th 2004, and, truth be told, if you and I passed each other on the street, you wouldn't even know it.
Politicians, as I've stated previously, have used good folks like Robert and myself to garner votes, leaving their own marriages in shambles. We're all human, and we all fall short in the eyes of G-d. I don't judge them, but I have expectations as an American that we should all be treated equally under the law...and you should know that when Canada passed marriage equality, they smartly used U.S. law as their guide! They cited Brown Vs. The Board of Education to highlight that "seperate but equal" is not what a real democratic society should aspire to.
We are proud that it was American law that set the standard for other countries when it comes to respecting the human rights an dignity for all
G-d's people!
Stuart & Robet Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
enteaser -- gotcha. You completed proving your complete lack of credibility here.
"Christians call it faith ... I call it the herd." - attributed to Friedriech Wilhelm Nietzsche ((1844-1900, German philosopher who reasoned that christianity's emphasis on the afterlife makes its believers less able to cope with earthly life)
Why do the pro gay's have such a hard time with the word GOD? Is G-d some sort of inside joke only known to those who choose a screw instead of a nut and bolt?
edge: By what definition do you state that the divorce rate is 50%?
Do you mean, like most who use this statistic, that half of all marriages end in divorce?
I'll answer my own question. The statement that you hear all the time in the news to prove how bad marriage is in the US (and sometimes used to promote gay marriage i.e. if straight people can't get it right why deny marriage to gays) is that half of all marriages end in divorce. This is statistical smoke and mirrors.
This number is usually derived by taking the number of people married in a given year and dividing by the number of people divorced in that same year. Several things are wrong with this reasoning.
First, the data, even calculated incorrectly using those numbers, is not 50%. For instance, in 2007 there were 2.197 million marriages and 856,000 divorces. That is a "39% divorce rate" not 50%. But of course, this is fallacy.
The problem with this approach to deriving the divorce rate is that it assumes that all people who have ever and are currently still married were married in that year. You would have to take all people that have ever been married and then take the number of those marriages that ended in divorce to know what "percentage of marriages end in divorce".
The National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the CDC) reported in 2002, " The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent" and " After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent". Not exactly 50%, huh?
"Is G-d some sort of inside joke?
Yes
"Do you mean, like most who use this statistic, that half of all marriages end in divorce?"
Yes
"Marriage is the foundation upon which our civil society is built. That's not even debatable."
Yes, it is.. We call it "debate" (pronounced de-bate)
"If you(Killer B) need a source for that truism, there's no point discussing any topic with you."
Typical of a poor creature backed into a corner by facts.......
The question of whether marriages are successful or fail is beside the point. There is no rational basis for the government to discriminate against consensual same-sex couples.
If marriage is the basis on which society is built, why not strengthen society by allowing more couples to take part in the institution?
What I've seen thus far is just a lot of people trying to rationalize bigotry.
Discrimination is a bad thing.
We should treat everyone equally.
ks: come on man. How about some props for my logical rant? Show some love for once.
cmon, So the word GOD is a joke to you and yours Please, Tell me why this country is so blessed with your presense?
Spock, don't be such a moron. My religion forbids spelling out the name of the Lord.
Mr. Wyman-Cahall,
I look forward to the day when the government of this nation recognizes your relationship for the marriage it truly is. It's time we all grew up.
Check out this song from Janis Ian:
http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.ht...
scroll down and download "Married in London"
It's a scream.
WHAT?
"We should treat everyone equally."
Nick -- yes, as people we should, but that's our privilege. However, governments created by our federal and state Constitutions are bound to do just that -- or they cease to be governments.
spock -- sounds like your religion bone is getting tweaked here. This is a good topic to participate if that's what you seek. Religion, its dogma and zealots are the main reason this controversy exists. I for one have no use at all for organized religion of any kind.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke
SPARE ME!
spock -- no.
Killer, just when you think your above all,Look UP.
spock - no.
"Your" is the second person possessive adjective, used to describe something as belonging to you. "Your" is nearly always followed by a noun.
"You're" is the contraction of "you are" and is often followed by the present participle (verb form ending in -ing).
Example: Your misunderstanding of basic grammar rules demonstrates that you're outwitted.
Wow, Hurly, your, a, dork,and, i, didnt, use ,capitals.look no hands either.Hey punk,Step off!
Would someone please explain to me how one man caan find love in another man's private parts.
mikegino -- it's just one of those things if it has to be explained to you, you couldn't understand.
bigb -- then call me evil. Since you outed yourself as a bigot I'm proud to wear that label.
..."enteaser -- your suggestion these people need your and your ilk's approval to to enjoy the very same privileges of marriage you take for granted, based on their lifestyle being sinful, is rank bigotry, and it's despicable. And only one of the many reasons why your dogma has no credibility in this Discussion"...
....Hey,KillerB...
Move to California, where you doctrine is not the exception but the more, the norm, And in my humble world of opinion,the opinion that you hold is a virus that too many can't adapt to...which is a big part of the reason great state of California is having the problems they are having presently....
Evil lurks...in the form of gays and their supporters.
GET IN BACK OF ME SATAN!!
Put down the skin flute!!!!
...Hey BigB.....
you got the right idea,(personal opinion)
Every nut needs a bolt otherwise,It's just a screw
David 1961 - move? No. I'd rather stay here and continue aggravating the likes of you.
"After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." -- Friedrich Nietzsche "Ecce Homo - Why I Am a Destiny," 1888
spock is full of hate, i am surprised he is not trying to deport gays and lesbians to another planet for their lifestyles and sexual preferences.
adrian, Is there anything you "don't" stand for? You come across like a rat that got lucky after the trap got rusty.
adrian: are you a community organizer?
ha ha spock, that is a clever metaphor!
I am an advocate for marginalized/oppressed communities by neo-conservative right-wingers who promote the status-qou.
Adrian: What's wrong with the status quo? Simple question: are gay people normal or abnormal? Do you want me and others like me to pay for the health care of the indolent, obese, and chemically addicted (nicotine, narcotics, and alcohol)? Do you believe saggers and taggers have certain inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the expense of those of us who pay taxes? Does it bother you we have become a nation of slackers and excuse-makers?
The status quo discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. It's an indefensible position.
Mike: so, you are offering to pay health insurance for Appalachians?
It does bother me that the nation is lazy, but what does that have to do with the gay and lesbian community?
I don't really know Adrian, but why did the Spanish-Mexicans steal Sonora from my wife's Yaqui ancestors? Injustice is everywhere.
There are no rights...not civil rights, not human rights, not natural rights....nada...zero....zipo.
The Government does what ever it wants to do.
It is only limited by what the collective people want it to be limited to.
In the USA, collectively the people tend to restrict the Government to a certain degree to give us a limited range in freedom of speech, religion and to assemble. The people encourage the USA to give the people due process when dealing with criminal law.
It it was a "right" then nobody could take it away from you.
Do you have a right to speak? Nope, the government takes that away from people every day.
Do you have the right to marry? Nope, the government limits that every day.
Do you have the right to live and breath? Nope, murders take that right away every day and even the government does so, too.
No right is given to you.
You have to fight for freedoms and "rights" and you have to get your neighbors, friends and family to join your fight of the vision of rights and freedoms that you believe in.
question mike, so because we discriminated/murdered/raped oppressed communities in the past, we should allow that to continue to this relatively new marginalized group?
There is no rational basis for the government to discriminate against consensual same-sex couples, SgtRock.
Obama and Reid agree with me and are against gay marriage.
ksand-
Don't even try arguing with that hypocrite. He whines about Reid one day, only to "praise" him the next. He whines about "freedom" one day, only to stomp on mine the next. Ignore the jerk.
And btw:
"There is no rational basis for the government to discriminate against consensual same-sex couples."
KillerB-
"However, governments created by our federal and state Constitutions are bound to do just that -- or they cease to be governments."
Another great sentence. Thanks!
Love is love is love. Simple as that. LGBT families are being hurt because of this discrimination, especially with the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities that we're shut out of. And no matter how "equal" separate is made to look, separate is never equal.
Keep using this sentence and eventually the usual suspects' heads will explode. ;-)
Adrian: I don't have a dog in this fight (to quote Michael Vick) but I do want justice for the Yaquis.
you should call the mexican and american governments. maybe they will be able to assist you.
"...so because we discriminated/murdered/raped oppressed communities in the past, we should allow that to continue to this relatively new marginalized group?"
adrianhu -- your post implied because "we" (assuming the U.S. government or just a bunch of ignorant frontier rednecks) engaged in acts of discrimination, murder and rape in the past (Japanese, blacks, and Indians, in that order) that "we" have power over them to "allow" a new group of our fellow citizens to define themselves as a group and press for recognition of equal rights under the law.
Our form of government, state as well as federal, are defined by their Constitutions, period. Nothing else enters into those equations without corrupting them.
Why should I call the mexican and american governments? Neither is competent or honest. The only organization I trust is the USMC. They only lied to get me in!
killerb: yes, they do deserve equal rights as different sex couples.
please reference this article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-m...
bigb -- this is my last response to any one of your posts here.
So exactly who gets to decide what is "natural" and why it matters so far as public policy goes?
The main problem with your posts is you can't get over why you and those you perceive to be like-minded can't control others' private lives. Look at the opinions expressed in counterpoint to you and your ilk -- the reasonable ones are NOT telling you who you are allowed to love, or be with, or commit their lives to, etc. We/they're saying they are as equally entitled to enjoy the very same freedoms you take for granted just because of your preference for certain kinds of genitalia and other glands.
The true evil is how and why government strayed from its original source code and pandered to your ilk rather than what it is bound to do -- protect individual freedoms without any respect whatsoever to who the person is (race, gender, etc.).
Why one adult needs to explain this to another just shows the ignorance instilled by dogma, propaganda, and personal stupidity.
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition, the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." - U.S. Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas 2003.
"government strayed from its original source code "
The USA in 1770's up to the 1900's outlawed homosexuality.
How is that exactly straying?
If you are not referring to the USA then what government are you referring to?
Everybody should join Obama, Reid and me and be against gay marriage.
SgtRock (fka jfnance32) -- we've been down this road before, haven't we?
No Constitution outlaws homosexuality, and you're some kind of moron to suggest they do. And as you've said yourself before, the Supreme Court is the last word on interpreting the law. That petition was submitted "under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment." You can look it up yourself -- it's cited as 539 U.S. 558.
I've explained the basics enough times here in several ways. If you can't grasp the concept of equality before the law you'll need to catch up your citizen's education elsewhere.
So....Mr. Expert.....you are saying the framers and originators of the Constitution....immediately broke the very Constitution that they wrote by passing anti-homosexuality laws.
Hmmmmm.....I guess they were dumb and not as smart as you.
Hmmmmm.....I guess that the Sumpreme Court judges were not smart as you either. I guess they were reading a different copy of the Constitution back then.
Sounds pretty basic to me.....perhaps your understanding of the Constitution is not the same the people who actually wrote the Constitution (and who were the same people who passed anti-homosexuality laws).
I also guess you are dumping the whole "government strayed from its original source code" argument for that would make absoluetly no sense if one compares that statement to the historic record.
Perhaps, you should take a very very deep breath and read a history book.
well mike, that seems like a personal problem if you do not trust either govts.
the gay and lesbian community should be given equal rights in this country. it does not make sense to discriminate this group of people because their views "conflict" with religion.
if is is not "natural" should not be held as a legitimate argument, if you read a history book - blacks marrying whites was not "natural," latinos with whites was not "natural!"
what will it take for equity and equality for minority groups?
For my good friend spock,
Jews interpret the law given by Moses as a prohibition against transcribing the name of G-d, because they feel that if God is recorded onto a piece of paper, there is the possibility that the name will be disrespected or destroyed in some way. The general concern with writing G-d in its true form is that it might be erased, defaced by being crossed out or scribbled upon, torn, thrown in the trash, or ravaged in some other way. Writing G-d instead of God communicates the writer's idea effectively, but since
G-d is incomplete, there is no risk of defacement. The Jews have other names for their creator besides G-d, including Hashem, YHVH, Elohim, and El Shaddai, which are also not written in their complete form.
There are, however, exceptions to the prohibition of writing God rather than G-d. The Jews believe that on occasion, it is acceptable to write God when there is no likelihood that the written word will be defaced. This includes the written form of God in the Torah, which is the Hebrew Bible, also found in the first five books of the Christian Bible. Writing the name of God is not prohibited when it is done carefully, with foresight and respect.
G-d is NOT a gay code word. LOL LOL!!
BTW, Spock and Sarge, notice Vegas rankings on the smartest cities? LOL...next to last. Bummer, huh?
From the married, gay Jewish guys,
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Being homophobic and somewhat of a misanthrope, I feel dirty simply posting in this forum, but I wanted to bring up an obvious point that is seldom brought up in this debate.
While marriage is a religious act, it's also a civil act that brings lawyers and litigation into the mix. Do you gay people really want that aspect of partnerships into your lives? Really? You want to have to worry that your partner only want's to be with you so that they can later get half of all your hard earned money? Really?
Really, you don't want to go there! Common sense here would suggest gays ought to have equal rights as married couples as far as things go, but draw the line in the sand that will protect your relationships from entering the "circle" that will allow the lawyers to put their hands into your pockets. As you can tell, I'm also lawyerphobic.
Sergio,
Marriage comes with rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
That is why two people who choose to care for each other for a lifetime should never take these vows lightly.
Robert and I have been togerher for 16 years through good times and bad, through sickness and in health and feel very confident about being IN the circle.
Common sense dictates that us gays can screw it up just as much as straights. We should be treated eqaually under the law and live with the consequenses of our own personal decisions just like everybody else.
Thanks, Sergio for your thoughtful post!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
And I dont think you're homophobic at all!
You just gotta follow the conversations, and you, like a lot of Americans will find that doing the right thing to a fellow human being, a fellow American , has little to do with "homphobia or feeling dirty".
I'm so glad you can appreciate that marriage is also a CIVIL act. There is hope for Nevadans yet!
Just the fact that you are willng to post here and listen to all points of view is a GOOD thing!!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Boy, this sure got off track from the original letter.
adrian: equal rights? I wish. My Yaqui-Mexican wife rules our roost!
What is amazing is that there are those who are so full of bigotry and hate that they support a Government dictating ones personal life.
Not to mention government even being involved in marriage is a direct violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, but then again when has the Constitution ever held them back?
Get a grip people, who one chooses to marry is none of you business, especially the government which they are in FACT forbidden by law to even be involved in it.
@ bigb
So you are defining "natural" on scripture and religion, hate to burst your bubble but it's a violation of the Rule of Law to -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
You also asked what "religion" condones homosexuality, well there are actually many. But here, let me enlighten you with one, one Christian religion that does, Episcopal church. There where also a pair of married gay saints in the early days of the Christian church, they were Saints Sergius and Bacchus.
My friend bigb,
Just a gentle reminder that prop 8 in California passed narrowly, not overwelmingly!
When California had prop 22 many years ago, like Nevada's question 2, it passed 62-28%. Prop 8 was MUCH narrower, 52-48%! The needle moved dramatically, and though I don't nessasarily believe this myself, some say that the overwelmingly large religious African American population, who showed up in large numbers to support President Obama, may have made the difference.
The future for marriage equality actually never looked better. Hearts and minds are changing, especially when we can see how much politicians, Dems and Repubs, like Ensign, Gov. Gibbons, Gov. Sanford, Larry Craig (the men's room toe-tapper), President Clinton, Gov. Sptizer, Sen. Vitter (who ejoyed being baby-diapered by the D.C. madam),and many others, have not "defended the sanctity of THEIR marriages" very well.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
These anti-gay marriage laws are almost totally based on religious scripture and therefore have no place in government.
enteaser;
Sorry to burst your bubble, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not a choice, your are BORN that way. Having family members with medical and psycological degrees, and have done studies on this. It is not wrong, love is a wonderful thing weather it is a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women. It is homophobes that have an issue with it. Who are we to say who someone should or shouldn't love.
Every bolt needs a nut,Otherwise it's just a screw.